Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1741	control, N = 871	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
age	172	50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75)	50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75)	50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)	0.931
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	174				0.708
f		138 (79%)	68 (78%)	70 (80%)
m		36 (21%)	19 (22%)	17 (20%)
occupation	174				0.914
day_training		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
full_time		22 (13%)	12 (14%)	10 (11%)
homemaker		18 (10%)	8 (9.2%)	10 (11%)
other		2 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
part_time		32 (18%)	16 (18%)	16 (18%)
retired		43 (25%)	21 (24%)	22 (25%)
self_employ		7 (4.0%)	4 (4.6%)	3 (3.4%)
student		2 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
t_and_e		2 (1.1%)	1 (1.1%)	1 (1.1%)
unemploy		42 (24%)	23 (26%)	19 (22%)
marital	174				0.972
cohabitation		1 (0.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.1%)
divore		19 (11%)	11 (13%)	8 (9.2%)
in_relationship		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
married		53 (30%)	25 (29%)	28 (32%)
none		84 (48%)	42 (48%)	42 (48%)
seperation		3 (1.7%)	2 (2.3%)	1 (1.1%)
widow		10 (5.7%)	5 (5.7%)	5 (5.7%)
edu	174				0.393
bachelor		40 (23%)	16 (18%)	24 (28%)
diploma		32 (18%)	21 (24%)	11 (13%)
hd_ad		5 (2.9%)	4 (4.6%)	1 (1.1%)
postgraduate		15 (8.6%)	8 (9.2%)	7 (8.0%)
primary		12 (6.9%)	5 (5.7%)	7 (8.0%)
secondary_1_3		19 (11%)	10 (11%)	9 (10%)
secondary_4_5		42 (24%)	19 (22%)	23 (26%)
secondary_6_7		9 (5.2%)	4 (4.6%)	5 (5.7%)
fam_income	174				0.713
10001_12000		6 (3.4%)	2 (2.3%)	4 (4.6%)
12001_14000		10 (5.7%)	4 (4.6%)	6 (6.9%)
14001_16000		8 (4.6%)	3 (3.4%)	5 (5.7%)
16001_18000		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
18001_20000		8 (4.6%)	6 (6.9%)	2 (2.3%)
20001_above		33 (19%)	20 (23%)	13 (15%)
2001_4000		24 (14%)	13 (15%)	11 (13%)
4001_6000		19 (11%)	7 (8.0%)	12 (14%)
6001_8000		16 (9.2%)	9 (10%)	7 (8.0%)
8001_10000		14 (8.0%)	7 (8.0%)	7 (8.0%)
below_2000		32 (18%)	14 (16%)	18 (21%)
medication	174	155 (89%)	77 (89%)	78 (90%)	0.808
onset_duration	172	15.46 ± 10.38 (0 - 56)	16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56)	14.90 ± 9.34 (0 - 35)	0.492
Unknown		2	0	2
onset_age	170	35.39 ± 13.56 (10 - 65)	34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61)	36.10 ± 14.64 (14 - 65)	0.495
Unknown		4	2	2
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1741	control, N = 871	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	174	3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)	0.704
recovery_stage_b	174	17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)	17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)	17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)	0.669
ras_confidence	174	29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45)	29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40)	30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)	0.315
ras_willingness	174	11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	0.709
ras_goal	174	17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25)	17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24)	17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)	0.297
ras_reliance	174	13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)	13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)	13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)	0.295
ras_domination	174	9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)	9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)	9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)	0.334
symptom	174	30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56)	30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55)	29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)	0.736
slof_work	174	22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30)	22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30)	22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)	0.579
slof_relationship	174	25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35)	24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35)	25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)	0.450
satisfaction	174	20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)	19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33)	21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	0.115
mhc_emotional	174	10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17)	11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	0.345
mhc_social	174	14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30)	14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30)	15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)	0.673
mhc_psychological	174	21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36)	21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36)	21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)	0.582
resilisnce	174	16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)	15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)	16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)	0.096
social_provision	174	13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20)	13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)	0.080
els_value_living	174	16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)	16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22)	17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.243
els_life_fulfill	174	12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)	12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)	13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)	0.059
els	174	29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)	28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39)	30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)	0.093
social_connect	174	26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)	27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48)	26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)	0.454
shs_agency	174	14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)	13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21)	14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)	0.164
shs_pathway	174	15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)	15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)	16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)	0.078
shs	174	30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)	29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45)	31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)	0.104
esteem	174	12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)	12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)	12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)	>0.999
mlq_search	174	14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)	0.190
mlq_presence	174	13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21)	13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)	13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)	0.669
mlq	174	28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42)	27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40)	28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)	0.356
empower	174	19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)	18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30)	19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)	0.189
ismi_resistance	174	14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20)	14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)	0.977
ismi_discrimation	174	11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)	11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20)	11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	0.442
sss_affective	174	10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)	0.787
sss_behavior	174	9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.778
sss_cognitive	174	8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)	8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)	8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	0.775
sss	174	28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54)	28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)	28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)	0.924
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.14	0.127	2.89, 3.39
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.069	0.179	-0.420, 0.282	0.701
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.183	0.181	-0.171, 0.538	0.313
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.274	0.262	-0.240, 0.788	0.298
	Pseudo R square	0.018
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.308	17.3, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.184	0.436	-1.04, 0.670	0.673
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.207	0.387	-0.965, 0.551	0.594
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.856	0.562	-0.244, 1.96	0.130
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.3	0.563	28.2, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.805	0.797	-0.757, 2.37	0.314
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.937	0.566	-0.173, 2.05	0.101
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.03	0.824	-0.583, 2.65	0.214
	Pseudo R square	0.029
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.215	11.3, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.115	0.304	-0.480, 0.710	0.705
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.067	0.242	-0.541, 0.407	0.782
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.455	0.351	-0.233, 1.14	0.198
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.338	16.5, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.494	0.479	-0.444, 1.43	0.303
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.171	0.382	-0.578, 0.921	0.655
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.605	0.556	-0.485, 1.69	0.279
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.310	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.460	0.438	-0.399, 1.32	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.321	0.334	-0.334, 0.975	0.339
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.458	0.485	-0.493, 1.41	0.348
	Pseudo R square	0.019
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.94	0.256	9.44, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.356	0.361	-1.06, 0.352	0.325
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.086	0.343	-0.586, 0.758	0.802
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.936	0.498	-0.039, 1.91	0.063
	Pseudo R square	0.019
symptom	(Intercept)	30.3	0.978	28.4, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.471	1.383	-3.18, 2.24	0.734
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.61	0.825	-3.22, 0.011	0.055
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.134	1.201	-2.49, 2.22	0.911
	Pseudo R square	0.008
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.508	21.5, 23.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.402	0.718	-1.81, 1.01	0.576
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.006	0.510	-0.993, 1.00	0.991
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.304	0.741	-1.15, 1.76	0.683
	Pseudo R square	0.002
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.0	0.624	23.7, 26.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.678	0.883	-1.05, 2.41	0.443
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.129	0.672	-1.45, 1.19	0.848
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.528	0.977	-1.39, 2.44	0.590
	Pseudo R square	0.006
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.5	0.760	18.0, 21.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.70	1.075	-0.405, 3.81	0.115
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.833	0.710	-0.559, 2.22	0.244
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.797	1.033	-1.23, 2.82	0.443
	Pseudo R square	0.025
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.5	0.402	9.68, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.540	0.569	-0.575, 1.66	0.344
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.567	0.368	-0.154, 1.29	0.127
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.354	0.535	-1.40, 0.695	0.510
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.8	0.620	13.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.356	0.876	-1.36, 2.07	0.685
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.07	0.647	-0.203, 2.33	0.103
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.304	0.941	-2.15, 1.54	0.747
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.3	0.711	20.0, 22.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.540	1.006	-1.43, 2.51	0.592
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.17	0.734	-0.266, 2.61	0.114
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.338	1.067	-2.43, 1.75	0.752
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	15.7	0.485	14.8, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.686	-0.161, 2.53	0.086
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.672	0.550	-0.405, 1.75	0.224
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.939	0.799	-0.627, 2.50	0.243
	Pseudo R square	0.040
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.306	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.759	0.432	-0.088, 1.61	0.081
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.372	0.335	-1.03, 0.284	0.268
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.751	0.487	-0.203, 1.70	0.126
	Pseudo R square	0.034
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.342	16.0, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.563	0.483	-0.384, 1.51	0.245
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.314	0.352	-0.376, 1.00	0.375
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.245	0.512	-0.758, 1.25	0.633
	Pseudo R square	0.014
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.350	11.5, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.966	0.496	-0.006, 1.94	0.053
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.390	0.334	-0.263, 1.04	0.245
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.163	0.485	-0.788, 1.11	0.738
	Pseudo R square	0.028
els	(Intercept)	28.8	0.637	27.6, 30.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.53	0.901	-0.237, 3.29	0.091
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.718	0.573	-0.405, 1.84	0.213
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.315	0.833	-1.32, 1.95	0.706
	Pseudo R square	0.023
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.2	0.998	25.2, 29.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.06	1.412	-3.82, 1.71	0.455
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.054	0.907	-1.72, 1.83	0.952
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.85	1.319	-5.43, -0.263	0.033
	Pseudo R square	0.020
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.541	12.7, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	0.765	-0.420, 2.58	0.160
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.427	0.499	-0.551, 1.41	0.394
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.475	0.727	-0.949, 1.90	0.515
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.435	14.5, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.11	0.616	-0.092, 2.32	0.072
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.548	0.417	-0.269, 1.36	0.192
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.236	0.606	-1.42, 0.953	0.698
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs	(Intercept)	29.1	0.932	27.3, 30.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.20	1.318	-0.389, 4.78	0.098
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.966	0.851	-0.702, 2.63	0.259
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.227	1.238	-2.20, 2.65	0.855
	Pseudo R square	0.020
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.166	12.3, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.234	-0.459, 0.459	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.165	0.228	-0.612, 0.282	0.470
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.282	0.331	-0.366, 0.931	0.395
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.376	13.8, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.713	0.531	-0.329, 1.75	0.181
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.915	0.459	0.014, 1.81	0.049
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.03	0.667	-2.33, 0.282	0.127
	Pseudo R square	0.011
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.464	12.3, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.287	0.656	-0.999, 1.57	0.662
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.896	0.518	-0.120, 1.91	0.087
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.228	0.753	-1.70, 1.25	0.762
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mlq	(Intercept)	27.7	0.754	26.2, 29.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	1.066	-1.09, 3.09	0.349
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.82	0.872	0.109, 3.53	0.040
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.24	1.267	-3.72, 1.24	0.330
	Pseudo R square	0.010
empower	(Intercept)	18.7	0.460	17.8, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.862	0.651	-0.414, 2.14	0.187
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.06	0.472	0.139, 1.99	0.027
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.07	0.686	-2.42, 0.271	0.121
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.269	13.9, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.011	0.380	-0.733, 0.756	0.976
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.118	0.332	-0.533, 0.768	0.723
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.512	0.482	-0.432, 1.46	0.290
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.333	11.2, 12.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.356	0.470	-1.28, 0.565	0.449
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.226	0.438	-1.08, 0.631	0.606
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.588	0.635	-1.83, 0.657	0.356
	Pseudo R square	0.015
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.1	0.390	9.38, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.149	0.552	-0.932, 1.23	0.787
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.018	0.379	-0.760, 0.725	0.962
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.22	0.551	-2.30, -0.140	0.029
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.98	0.399	9.20, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.161	0.564	-1.27, 0.944	0.776
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.285	0.388	-1.05, 0.476	0.464
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.404	0.565	-1.51, 0.704	0.477
	Pseudo R square	0.006
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.34	0.392	7.58, 9.11
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.161	0.554	-0.925, 1.25	0.772
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.117	0.406	-0.913, 0.679	0.774
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.777	0.591	-1.93, 0.381	0.192
	Pseudo R square	0.007
sss	(Intercept)	28.5	1.100	26.3, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.149	1.556	-2.90, 3.20	0.924
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.467	0.982	-2.39, 1.46	0.636
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.21	1.429	-5.01, 0.594	0.126
	Pseudo R square	0.008
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(253) = 24.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.79], t(253) = 1.04, p = 0.296; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(253) = 58.12, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(253) = -0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.55], t(253) = -0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.96], t(253) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(253) = 52.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.05], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.65], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(253) = 54.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.41], t(253) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(253) = 1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.57])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(253) = 50.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(253) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.92], t(253) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.69], t(253) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(253) = 42.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(253) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.98], t(253) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.41], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(253) = 38.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(253) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.76], t(253) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.91], t(253) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(253) = 30.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(253) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.01], t(253) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.22], t(253) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(253) = 44.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.01], t(253) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.00], t(253) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 1.17e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.76], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(253) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.41], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.19], t(253) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.44], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(253) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.40, 3.81], t(253) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.22], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.82], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(253) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(253) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.29], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.70], t(253) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(253) = 23.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.33], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.54], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(253) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.61], t(253) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.75], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(253) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(253) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.75], t(253) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.50], t(253) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(253) = 43.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(253) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.28], t(253) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.70], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.59])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(253) = 48.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.00], t(253) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.25], t(253) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(253) = 34.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-5.87e-03, 1.94], t(253) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.78e-03, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.04], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.11], t(253) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(253) = 45.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.29], t(253) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.95], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(253) = 27.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.71], t(253) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.83], t(253) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 5.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.85, 95% CI [-5.43, -0.26], t(253) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.78], t(253) = 25.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(253) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.41], t(253) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.90], t(253) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(253) = 35.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.32], t(253) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.36], t(253) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.95], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(253) = 31.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.39, 4.78], t(253) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.63], t(253) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-2.20, 2.65], t(253) = 0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.31])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.95], t(253) = 76.18, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(253) = -6.95e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.86e-16, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28], t(253) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93], t(253) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.60])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(253) = 38.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(253) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [0.01, 1.81], t(253) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [4.12e-03, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.28], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.08])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(253) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(253) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.91], t(253) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.25], t(253) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.29])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(253) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.11, 3.53], t(253) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.24], t(253) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.18])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(253) = 40.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(253) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.14, 1.99], t(253) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.27], t(253) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.06])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(253) = 53.54, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(253) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.77], t(253) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.46], t(253) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.58])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(253) = 35.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.57], t(253) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.63], t(253) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.66], t(253) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.21])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(253) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(253) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.72], t(253) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -4.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.30, -0.14], t(253) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(253) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.48], t(253) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.70], t(253) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(253) = 21.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.25], t(253) = 0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.68], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.38], t(253) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.10])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.31, 30.63], t(253) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(253) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.46], t(253) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-5.01, 0.59], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	816.718	827.388	-405.359	810.718
recovery_stage_a	random	6	816.009	837.350	-402.005	804.009	6.709	3	0.082
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,257.127	1,267.797	-625.563	1,251.127
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,260.254	1,281.595	-624.127	1,248.254	2.873	3	0.412
ras_confidence	null	3	1,549.446	1,560.116	-771.723	1,543.446
ras_confidence	random	6	1,540.451	1,561.792	-764.225	1,528.451	14.995	3	0.002
ras_willingness	null	3	1,054.713	1,065.383	-524.356	1,048.713
ras_willingness	random	6	1,057.649	1,078.990	-522.825	1,045.649	3.064	3	0.382
ras_goal	null	3	1,293.864	1,304.535	-643.932	1,287.864
ras_goal	random	6	1,293.947	1,315.288	-640.973	1,281.947	5.918	3	0.116
ras_reliance	null	3	1,242.695	1,253.365	-618.347	1,236.695
ras_reliance	random	6	1,241.097	1,262.438	-614.549	1,229.097	7.598	3	0.055
ras_domination	null	3	1,174.254	1,184.924	-584.127	1,168.254
ras_domination	random	6	1,172.125	1,193.466	-580.062	1,160.125	8.129	3	0.043
symptom	null	3	1,800.251	1,810.921	-897.125	1,794.251
symptom	random	6	1,798.562	1,819.903	-893.281	1,786.562	7.689	3	0.053
slof_work	null	3	1,480.977	1,491.648	-737.489	1,474.977
slof_work	random	6	1,486.417	1,507.758	-737.208	1,474.417	0.560	3	0.905
slof_relationship	null	3	1,599.125	1,609.795	-796.562	1,593.125
slof_relationship	random	6	1,603.824	1,625.165	-795.912	1,591.824	1.301	3	0.729
satisfaction	null	3	1,687.358	1,698.029	-840.679	1,681.358
satisfaction	random	6	1,684.052	1,705.393	-836.026	1,672.052	9.306	3	0.025
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,348.637	1,359.307	-671.319	1,342.637
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,351.303	1,372.644	-669.652	1,339.303	3.334	3	0.343
mhc_social	null	3	1,593.596	1,604.266	-793.798	1,587.596
mhc_social	random	6	1,595.560	1,616.901	-791.780	1,583.560	4.035	3	0.258
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,663.025	1,673.696	-828.513	1,657.025
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,665.113	1,686.454	-826.557	1,653.113	3.912	3	0.271
resilisnce	null	3	1,488.741	1,499.412	-741.371	1,482.741
resilisnce	random	6	1,481.036	1,502.377	-734.518	1,469.036	13.705	3	0.003
social_provision	null	3	1,238.123	1,248.793	-616.061	1,232.123
social_provision	random	6	1,236.372	1,257.713	-612.186	1,224.372	7.751	3	0.051
els_value_living	null	3	1,283.904	1,294.575	-638.952	1,277.904
els_value_living	random	6	1,285.066	1,306.407	-636.533	1,273.066	4.838	3	0.184
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,288.131	1,298.801	-641.065	1,282.131
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,286.004	1,307.345	-637.002	1,274.004	8.127	3	0.043
els	null	3	1,588.527	1,599.198	-791.264	1,582.527
els	random	6	1,586.764	1,608.105	-787.382	1,574.764	7.763	3	0.051
social_connect	null	3	1,825.038	1,835.709	-909.519	1,819.038
social_connect	random	6	1,820.961	1,842.302	-904.481	1,808.961	10.077	3	0.018
shs_agency	null	3	1,506.505	1,517.175	-750.253	1,500.505
shs_agency	random	6	1,506.274	1,527.615	-747.137	1,494.274	6.231	3	0.101
shs_pathway	null	3	1,398.666	1,409.337	-696.333	1,392.666
shs_pathway	random	6	1,399.364	1,420.705	-693.682	1,387.364	5.302	3	0.151
shs	null	3	1,786.378	1,797.049	-890.189	1,780.378
shs	random	6	1,786.285	1,807.626	-887.143	1,774.285	6.093	3	0.107
esteem	null	3	945.773	956.444	-469.887	939.773
esteem	random	6	950.869	972.210	-469.434	938.869	0.905	3	0.824
mlq_search	null	3	1,358.023	1,368.694	-676.012	1,352.023
mlq_search	random	6	1,359.297	1,380.638	-673.648	1,347.297	4.726	3	0.193
mlq_presence	null	3	1,454.322	1,464.993	-724.161	1,448.322
mlq_presence	random	6	1,455.737	1,477.078	-721.869	1,443.737	4.585	3	0.205
mlq	null	3	1,711.419	1,722.089	-852.709	1,705.419
mlq	random	6	1,712.304	1,733.645	-850.152	1,700.304	5.115	3	0.164
empower	null	3	1,438.716	1,449.387	-716.358	1,432.716
empower	random	6	1,438.836	1,460.177	-713.418	1,426.836	5.880	3	0.118
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,184.785	1,195.456	-589.393	1,178.785
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,187.246	1,208.587	-587.623	1,175.246	3.539	3	0.316
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,304.771	1,315.441	-649.385	1,298.771
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,306.047	1,327.388	-647.024	1,294.047	4.724	3	0.193
sss_affective	null	3	1,348.306	1,358.976	-671.153	1,342.306
sss_affective	random	6	1,344.723	1,366.064	-666.362	1,332.723	9.583	3	0.022
sss_behavior	null	3	1,353.942	1,364.613	-673.971	1,347.942
sss_behavior	random	6	1,356.334	1,377.675	-672.167	1,344.334	3.608	3	0.307
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,355.465	1,366.135	-674.733	1,349.465
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,357.003	1,378.344	-672.502	1,345.003	4.462	3	0.216
sss	null	3	1,869.501	1,880.172	-931.751	1,863.501
sss	random	6	1,868.577	1,889.918	-928.288	1,856.577	6.924	3	0.074

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	87	3.14 ± 1.18		87	3.07 ± 1.18		0.701	0.074
recovery_stage_a	2nd	45	3.32 ± 1.14	-0.197	40	3.53 ± 1.14	-0.491	0.410	-0.220
recovery_stage_b	1st	87	17.91 ± 2.87		87	17.72 ± 2.87		0.673	0.095
recovery_stage_b	2nd	45	17.70 ± 2.67	0.106	40	18.37 ± 2.65	-0.334	0.245	-0.346
ras_confidence	1st	87	29.33 ± 5.26		87	30.14 ± 5.26		0.314	-0.289
ras_confidence	2nd	45	30.27 ± 4.56	-0.337	40	32.11 ± 4.47	-0.707	0.062	-0.660
ras_willingness	1st	87	11.74 ± 2.00		87	11.85 ± 2.00		0.705	-0.096
ras_willingness	2nd	45	11.67 ± 1.80	0.056	40	12.24 ± 1.77	-0.324	0.142	-0.475
ras_goal	1st	87	17.17 ± 3.16		87	17.67 ± 3.16		0.303	-0.260
ras_goal	2nd	45	17.34 ± 2.84	-0.090	40	18.44 ± 2.79	-0.409	0.074	-0.579
ras_reliance	1st	87	13.08 ± 2.89		87	13.54 ± 2.89		0.295	-0.279
ras_reliance	2nd	45	13.40 ± 2.56	-0.194	40	14.32 ± 2.52	-0.472	0.097	-0.556
ras_domination	1st	87	9.94 ± 2.38		87	9.59 ± 2.38		0.325	0.204
ras_domination	2nd	45	10.03 ± 2.26	-0.049	40	10.61 ± 2.25	-0.587	0.238	-0.333
symptom	1st	87	30.28 ± 9.12		87	29.80 ± 9.12		0.734	0.118
symptom	2nd	45	28.67 ± 7.56	0.401	40	28.07 ± 7.35	0.434	0.709	0.151
slof_work	1st	87	22.52 ± 4.74		87	22.11 ± 4.74		0.576	0.161
slof_work	2nd	45	22.52 ± 4.11	-0.002	40	22.42 ± 4.03	-0.124	0.911	0.039
slof_relationship	1st	87	24.97 ± 5.82		87	25.64 ± 5.82		0.443	-0.204
slof_relationship	2nd	45	24.84 ± 5.15	0.039	40	26.04 ± 5.07	-0.120	0.278	-0.363
satisfaction	1st	87	19.48 ± 7.09		87	21.18 ± 7.09		0.115	-0.490
satisfaction	2nd	45	20.32 ± 6.03	-0.240	40	22.81 ± 5.89	-0.470	0.055	-0.720
mhc_emotional	1st	87	10.47 ± 3.75		87	11.01 ± 3.75		0.344	-0.301
mhc_emotional	2nd	45	11.04 ± 3.17	-0.316	40	11.22 ± 3.10	-0.119	0.784	-0.104
mhc_social	1st	87	14.80 ± 5.78		87	15.16 ± 5.78		0.685	-0.112
mhc_social	2nd	45	15.87 ± 5.07	-0.334	40	15.92 ± 4.98	-0.239	0.962	-0.016
mhc_psychological	1st	87	21.34 ± 6.63		87	21.89 ± 6.63		0.592	-0.150
mhc_psychological	2nd	45	22.52 ± 5.80	-0.324	40	22.72 ± 5.69	-0.231	0.871	-0.056
resilisnce	1st	87	15.72 ± 4.53		87	16.91 ± 4.53		0.086	-0.434
resilisnce	2nd	45	16.40 ± 4.07	-0.246	40	18.52 ± 4.01	-0.590	0.016	-0.778
social_provision	1st	87	13.14 ± 2.85		87	13.90 ± 2.85		0.081	-0.458
social_provision	2nd	45	12.77 ± 2.54	0.225	40	14.27 ± 2.50	-0.228	0.006	-0.911
els_value_living	1st	87	16.64 ± 3.19		87	17.21 ± 3.19		0.245	-0.325
els_value_living	2nd	45	16.96 ± 2.78	-0.181	40	17.77 ± 2.73	-0.323	0.178	-0.467
els_life_fulfill	1st	87	12.20 ± 3.27		87	13.16 ± 3.27		0.053	-0.592
els_life_fulfill	2nd	45	12.59 ± 2.79	-0.239	40	13.71 ± 2.73	-0.339	0.061	-0.691
els	1st	87	28.84 ± 5.94		87	30.37 ± 5.94		0.091	-0.547
els	2nd	45	29.56 ± 5.00	-0.257	40	31.40 ± 4.88	-0.370	0.087	-0.660
social_connect	1st	87	27.16 ± 9.31		87	26.10 ± 9.31		0.455	0.239
social_connect	2nd	45	27.22 ± 7.86	-0.012	40	23.31 ± 7.67	0.632	0.021	0.883
shs_agency	1st	87	13.72 ± 5.05		87	14.80 ± 5.05		0.160	-0.443
shs_agency	2nd	45	14.15 ± 4.28	-0.175	40	15.71 ± 4.18	-0.370	0.091	-0.638
shs_pathway	1st	87	15.37 ± 4.06		87	16.48 ± 4.06		0.072	-0.547
shs_pathway	2nd	45	15.92 ± 3.47	-0.269	40	16.79 ± 3.40	-0.153	0.240	-0.431
shs	1st	87	29.09 ± 8.70		87	31.29 ± 8.70		0.098	-0.529
shs	2nd	45	30.06 ± 7.35	-0.233	40	32.48 ± 7.17	-0.287	0.126	-0.584
esteem	1st	87	12.62 ± 1.55		87	12.62 ± 1.55		1.000	0.000
esteem	2nd	45	12.46 ± 1.48	0.142	40	12.74 ± 1.47	-0.101	0.379	-0.242
mlq_search	1st	87	14.52 ± 3.50		87	15.23 ± 3.50		0.181	-0.310
mlq_search	2nd	45	15.43 ± 3.23	-0.397	40	15.12 ± 3.19	0.048	0.655	0.136
mlq_presence	1st	87	13.18 ± 4.33		87	13.47 ± 4.33		0.662	-0.112
mlq_presence	2nd	45	14.08 ± 3.87	-0.349	40	14.14 ± 3.82	-0.260	0.944	-0.023
mlq	1st	87	27.70 ± 7.03		87	28.70 ± 7.03		0.349	-0.230
mlq	2nd	45	29.52 ± 6.36	-0.419	40	29.28 ± 6.28	-0.133	0.862	0.055
empower	1st	87	18.69 ± 4.29		87	19.55 ± 4.29		0.187	-0.371
empower	2nd	45	19.75 ± 3.75	-0.458	40	19.54 ± 3.67	0.004	0.793	0.091
ismi_resistance	1st	87	14.39 ± 2.51		87	14.40 ± 2.51		0.976	-0.007
ismi_resistance	2nd	45	14.51 ± 2.32	-0.071	40	15.03 ± 2.29	-0.378	0.297	-0.314
ismi_discrimation	1st	87	11.84 ± 3.10		87	11.48 ± 3.10		0.449	0.161
ismi_discrimation	2nd	45	11.61 ± 2.93	0.102	40	10.67 ± 2.91	0.367	0.137	0.426
sss_affective	1st	87	10.15 ± 3.64		87	10.30 ± 3.64		0.787	-0.080
sss_affective	2nd	45	10.13 ± 3.13	0.010	40	9.06 ± 3.06	0.667	0.112	0.577
sss_behavior	1st	87	9.98 ± 3.72		87	9.82 ± 3.72		0.776	0.085
sss_behavior	2nd	45	9.69 ± 3.20	0.150	40	9.13 ± 3.13	0.362	0.412	0.297
sss_cognitive	1st	87	8.34 ± 3.65		87	8.51 ± 3.65		0.772	-0.080
sss_cognitive	2nd	45	8.23 ± 3.20	0.058	40	7.61 ± 3.14	0.447	0.372	0.308
sss	1st	87	28.47 ± 10.26		87	28.62 ± 10.26		0.924	-0.031
sss	2nd	45	28.00 ± 8.62	0.098	40	25.95 ± 8.41	0.559	0.267	0.430

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(234.10) = -0.39, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(250.33) = 0.83, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.69)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(217.31) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.67)

2st

t(250.79) = 1.16, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.81)

ras_confidence

1st

t(198.36) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)

2st

t(254.91) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.77)

ras_willingness

1st

t(206.62) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.71)

2st

t(253.15) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.33)

ras_goal

1st

t(206.98) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)

2st

t(253.06) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.30)

ras_reliance

1st

t(203.17) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)

2st

t(254.03) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.00)

ras_domination

1st

t(225.47) = -0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.36)

2st

t(250.02) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)

symptom

1st

t(189.52) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.26)

2st

t(252.35) = -0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.79 to 2.58)

slof_work

1st

t(198.25) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)

2st

t(254.92) = -0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.64)

slof_relationship

1st

t(203.07) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.42)

2st

t(254.05) = 1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.39)

satisfaction

1st

t(194.21) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)

2st

t(254.77) = 1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.05 to 5.05)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(193.06) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)

2st

t(254.46) = 0.27, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.53)

mhc_social

1st

t(200.91) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.08)

2st

t(254.52) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.20)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(200.04) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.52)

2st

t(254.68) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.66)

resilisnce

1st

t(207.14) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)

2st

t(253.02) = 2.42, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.85)

social_provision

1st

t(204.41) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.61)

2st

t(253.72) = 2.76, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.43 to 2.59)

els_value_living

1st

t(199.93) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)

2st

t(254.70) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(195.16) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)

2st

t(254.92) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.31)

els

1st

t(192.28) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)

2st

t(254.16) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.27 to 3.96)

social_connect

1st

t(192.76) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)

2st

t(254.36) = -2.32, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-7.23 to -0.59)

shs_agency

1st

t(193.54) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)

2st

t(254.61) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.36)

shs_pathway

1st

t(195.46) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)

2st

t(254.95) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.35)

shs

1st

t(193.01) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)

2st

t(254.45) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.53)

esteem

1st

t(228.95) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)

2st

t(250.01) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)

mlq_search

1st

t(214.45) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

2st

t(251.30) = -0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.06)

mlq_presence

1st

t(205.98) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)

2st

t(253.32) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.70)

mlq

1st

t(208.96) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)

2st

t(252.55) = -0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.47)

empower

1st

t(199.62) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)

2st

t(254.75) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.37)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(215.52) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)

2st

t(251.09) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(222.92) = -0.76, p = 0.449, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

2st

t(250.15) = -1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(196.28) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)

2st

t(255.00) = -1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.25)

sss_behavior

1st

t(196.51) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)

2st

t(255.00) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.79)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(200.36) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(254.63) = -0.89, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.74)

sss

1st

t(191.95) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)

2st

t(254.01) = -1.11, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.70 to 1.58)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(123.28) = 2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.83)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(110.16) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(97.94) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.16)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(103.04) = 1.52, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(103.27) = 1.92, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(100.88) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.48)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(116.14) = 2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.74)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(92.74) = -1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.47 to -0.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(97.87) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.38)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(100.81) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.81)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(95.46) = 2.17, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(94.79) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(99.48) = 1.11, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.12)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(98.95) = 1.07, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.38)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(103.38) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.76)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(101.65) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(98.89) = 1.50, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.30)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(96.02) = 1.57, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)

els

1st vs 2st

t(94.34) = 1.70, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.24)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(94.61) = -2.91, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.89)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(95.07) = 1.71, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.95)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(96.20) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.19)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(94.76) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(118.89) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.59)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(108.18) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(102.63) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.75)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(104.54) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.41)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(98.70) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.98)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(108.91) = 1.80, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.33)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(114.21) = -1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.10)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(96.69) = -3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.03 to -0.44)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(96.82) = -1.68, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(99.14) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(94.14) = -2.57, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.61)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(118.22) = 1.01, p = 0.629, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.54)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.86) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.56)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(96.21) = 1.65, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.06)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(100.67) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.41)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(100.87) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(98.78) = 0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.98)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(112.04) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(91.64) = -1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.04)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(96.15) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(98.72) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(94.04) = 1.17, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.25)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(93.45) = 1.54, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.30)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(97.56) = 1.64, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.35)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(97.10) = 1.59, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.63)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(100.96) = 1.22, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.77)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(99.46) = -1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(97.04) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(94.53) = 1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.05)

els

1st vs 2st

t(93.05) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.86)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(93.29) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(93.70) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.42)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(94.69) = 1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.38)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(93.42) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.66)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(114.42) = -0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.29)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(105.15) = 1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.83)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(100.32) = 1.72, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.93)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(101.98) = 2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.55)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(96.87) = 2.25, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.00)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(105.78) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.78)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(110.37) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(95.12) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(95.23) = -0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.49)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(97.27) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.69)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(92.88) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.49)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance